DANG!
What has caused divisions in Catholicism??
Posted on 06/21/2018 9:48:25 PM PDT by boatbums
Over the years, I’ve had several Catholic friends and converts ask why I ultimately didn’t convert to their denomination. During my first two years of college, I spent a significant amount of time with Catholics, including at the (then?) US Opus Dei headquarters in NYC. I attended these gatherings with a good friend, who eventually decided to convert from Evangelicalism. I came close to converting, but ultimately decided against it. This has surprised some Catholics. I suspect this is because the standard narrative is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are crossing the Tiber in great droves.
Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years, Catholicism has lost millions of adherents, most of these converting to a kind of nonreligious spiritualism/secularism or to Protestantism, while millions more Protestants remain Protestant. For every one person who converts to Catholicism, about six leave the church.
Still, the notion that Catholicism is attracting large numbers of Protestant converts, with no movement in the other direction, can create the impression that there is something irresistible about Catholicism to anyone who studies it. My reasons for remaining Protestant haven’t changed a great deal, although they have become more refined, especially since seminary. I would like to share some of them here.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
Whenever I read Catholic apologists, I’m fascinated by the near-total absence of robust exegetical arguments. Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages. On the first measure — that I cannot interpret the Bible, so any defense of Protestantism I offer is just my own, unreliable judgment — epistemological objections to interpreting the New Testament strike me as self-defeating. God asks us to interpret him every time he communicates with us. How can we understand him if we don’t engage in interpretation? Or how does someone come to understand that their “private” interpretations are wrong unless they first interpret the speech that tells them so?
Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,” here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head:
Placemarker for coffee in the AM.
I would never consider becoming a Catholic. However, I do like some of their traditions, and the more modern Protestant church I attend now only has a few remaining. That, and I’m guessing the Catholics still get to use real wine instead of juice!
The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the laity. For by Christ's institution and commandment both parts of the Lord's sacrament ought to be administered to all Christian people alike.
Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years,
That is for sure. Far more RCs become evangelical than cross over to Rome.
Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages.
For Catholics church teaching is the Supreme Law, under the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial reliability.
But what valid church teaching consists of, and what magisterial level it belongs to - and thus what level of assent it requires - as well as its meaning, are all subject 0 to varying degrees - to variant interpretations by the Catholic.
here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head: Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible. Pauline church government is authoritarian in some respects but is a distant cousin to the modern Magisterium. NT (and OT) ethics support the implementation of the death penalty in ways that are alien to Francis’s ethical statements and implications. Contra the post-Vatican II ethos, Christ and Paul are utterly unsympathetic to salvation for those who refuse to submit directly and openly to Christ and his Gospel. Biblical unity is defined by adherence to core doctrine. Organizational fealty is never primary in the NT’s exposition of authority and unity. Related: when I read the church fathers, I don’t think many of them would recognize some of the core beliefs of modern Catholicism.
How about the fact that Catholic distinctives simply are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), especially Acts thru Revelation. From becoming actually good enough thru Purgatory to enter Heaven to a separate sacerdotal class of celibate believers who uniquely offer the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, to praying to created beings in Heaven ,
Such works typically do not even have the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur, which flows from the office of the Inquisition, which means many TradCats seems to long for.
This is downstream of another problem. As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant.
The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion...When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp..the NAB and the USCCB hedge on Pauline authorship
Oh, its much worse than that! For decades readers of the official Bible for American RCs, the New American (not Standard) Bible (now NABRE) have been told such things - well just see here , by the grace of God. .
In terms of social desirability, Catholicism offers several important features that are often (but not always!) lacking in Protestant circles: a deep sense of historical continuity
Which is actually a fatal basis for their claim to be in the OTC (one true church). Which is that of making the uninspired writings of so-called church "fathers" determinitive of what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed. And contrary to the Catholic model, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Sorry to hear of your discomfort. I’ll be praying for you.
I don’t think this article can honestly be seen as “Catholic-bashing” - though I’m sure some will think so regardless. The author brings up some important points that I agree with and is also why I have no desire to ever go back to Catholicism.
Thanks. I did not want to burden you, and trust this too shall pass.
I don’t think this article can honestly be seen as “Catholic-bashing” - though I’m sure some will think so regardless. The author brings up some important points that I agree with and is also why I have no desire to ever go back to Catholicism.
Meanwhile, from the man TradCats lament,
Pope Calls for Christian Unity in Protestant Heartland of Geneva
6/21/2018, 8:52:36 PM · by marshmallow · 3 replies The Catholic Herald (UK) ^ | 6/21/18 | Carol Glatz
A 'worldly mindset' caused divisions in Christianity, the Pope said. Not only God, but today’s broken, divided world is begging for unity among Christians, Pope Francis said on an ecumenical pilgrimage to Geneva. “Our differences must not be excuses,” he said, because as Christ’s disciples, Christians can still pray together, evangelize and serve others.
And finally, the Whore of Babylon is the RCC. It is on 7 hills. It has killed more saints that all other religions combined. It is the woman that has fornicated with all the kings of the earth. What other religion, even Islam could match all the requirements to be the Harlot?
The Antichrist will come from the old empire of Assyria which was part of the Roman Empire also. That will cover Iran, Iraq, Syria, and slivers of other modern day Middle East countries. The pope will most likely be the False Prophet. When a pope declares there are more ways to heaven besides Christ,...bingo! If a man could be good enough to go to heaven without Christ, why did Christ die? The Antichrist will come from a Muslim country, but Scripture says he won't have the religion of his fathers. Probably some form of the new Chrislam. It also says he doesn't like women.
John tells the Catholics to "Come out of Her" in Rev 18:4, so it's not to late. Also we have the Letter to the churches in Revelation to Thyatira. Thyatira was Nimrod's daughters name. Nimrod is a type and shadow of the Antichrist.
In the end, we have 2 choices. The church of Scripture, or Babylon. All the denominations are "traditions of men". Only the church of Brotherly love will be Raptured. The only command of Jesus was to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your brother as yourself. Those will be His Bride that will be removed to avoid the Tribulation, or the test coming to the whole world, as Rev 3:10. You want to avoid being an "earth dweller" at that time.
Wow.
The Lutherans consider Clement to be a saint. Was he in the Whore?
My best friend of thirty years converted to Catholic long ago from Protestant (Lutheran).
We occasionally have had heated debates, but mostly agree to disagree. Unlike many Catholics of my personal acquaintance, she is not only highly devout, but very knowledgeable and articulate about her faith - however, much of that predates her conversion to Catholic.
My problems with the Catholic Church are as much practical as they are theological - and beyond the scope of a simple post here.
I began studying the Bible at five, and was being groomed for seminary by 16. I have known so many clergy - of many denominations - and have seen so much while working behind the scenes in two denominations, that I have become quite cynical about all human church organizations.
Nota bene: I am not cynical about Christ or his Gospel. I simply refuse to equate a temporal institution with his eternal one. (God working through such does not make such perfect - any more than God working through Cyrus made Cyrus perfect.)
Equally, I reject the premise, hidden or not, that any one theology is perfectly correct. We see through a glass darkly - all of us. For that reason, I am much more interested in the Bible than any theology.
I have become virtually allergic to the every term, “Biblical scholars”; I have met too many seminary-bred heretics, and I know too well how the Frankfurt School has infected all American learning institutions, including Christian seminaries and universities.
The author seems sincere, so this is not a personal attack, but I will offer these comments:
The “Biblical scholars” of Jesus’ time - the Pharisees, Sadducees - almost entirely rejected him. His apostles were laymen. The closest one to a scholar was the apostle born out of time, the chief of sinners, a man who consented to murder.
What made the apostles exceptional was that they knew Jesus, not that they attended this or that seminary, and got a piece of parchment declaring that they were qualified to use words like exegesis!
I have seen much hubris and heresy among the various seminary graduates I have met. What I have seldom seen in any seminarian are humility and wisdom. The ones I knew both before and after seemed disimproved by the experience in Christian terms.
For that reason, to spare myself such temptation to intellectual pride, and to spare myself what increasingly seemed to be a waste of time and money, I balked at attending seminary.
The author is free to think what he likes about someone like me. I am likewise free to do the same about seminarians as a class.
Same here. I have no desire to swim the Tiber, and besides, I hear it is quite polluted. 😁
For me; it's because they WASTE so much time doing things that are non-Scriptural.
DANG!
What has caused divisions in Catholicism??
You'll have to change your screenname to...
Gets_Their_Panties_in_a_Wad
As attested to on these very threads. Of the Roman Catholics I've encountered on FR, there has only been one Roman Catholic poster who was close to being a good debater.
The articles Roman Catholics link to on catholicanswers.com have some of the weakest apologetics I've seen.
This is due in part to a lack of understanding that only Scripture is inspired and is to be the source of truth for the believer in Christ.
One of the biggest issues I've notice amongst our Roman Catholic posters is the lack of understanding on how to interpret the Bible in context. It seems many are bereft of Biblical knowledge. I know when I've tried to introduce this concept of context it has seemed to be alien to many Roman Catholics.
And when confronted with inspired Scripture that clearly contradicts their positions on the various topics the Roman Catholic often retreats to the cries of the "magisterium" told us so it's ok.
The other problem for the Roman Catholic, and in fairness many non-Roman Catholics, is a lack of knowledge of the original languages used to write the Scriptures. Without that the exegesis, though it can be performed, is short changed.
“One of the biggest issues I’ve notice amongst our Roman Catholic posters is the lack of understanding on how to interpret the Bible in context.”
True. But in all fairness, I recall when I was younger, in the ‘50s and ‘60s, the R.C. families I knew said their church forbade them from reading the Bible. (I don’t think it’s that way any more.)
My dad was a pastor in a small town, and was friendly with the Catholic priest down the street. Once he asked the priest why that was. The response was basically, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. WE will tell you what to think and believe.” If members read/knew the Truth, it would be dangerous.
I think many RC priests are worried they would not be able to answer the questions of their members if they were to actually read the texts for themselves.
I offer the below for consideration.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm
The irony is that while they condemn *YOPIOS* when a non-Catholic does it, they then go on to give THEIR own personal interpretation of Scripture since Roman Catholicism has officially interpreted so few passages itself, which they then claim leaves everything else open for their pwn personal interpretation.
So it's *Rules for thee but not for me*.
Are you kidding?
It doesn't paint Catholicism as all rainbows and ponies. Of course it's going to be labeled as *Catholic bashing*.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.